Consultation is an essential tool in establishing public opinion and support for any major infrastructure scheme. There are various types and methods for consultation on a scheme such as the Waverley Railway Project. Consultation typically falls into 3 main areas all of which expected, these are

Statutory consultation

Affected parties/land/property consultation

Public Consultation

2. Statutory consultation

This is as prescribed by the Bill. This includes serving pre-specified documents and notices on the statutory consultees as defined. This task is typically done by the Parliamentary Agents and Land Referencers. Both are retained to do this under their current agreement

3. Specific land/property consultation

This is the personal contact with people directly affected. This would typically be done by the promoter with technical support from the consultant team. Scott Wilson are already looking at some options were specific land interests are affected which will be used by the promoters when contact is made. Land Aspects will identify interests and ownership prior to visits by the relevant authority. This clearly needs to done in advance of more general Public Consultation.

4. Public Consultation

This is the more general consultation were the public are consulted on the scheme. Typically this consists of setting up a contact point (already done by Atlantic), followed by a launch of the project with local exhibitions. The timing of this is essential and must not be undertaken too early as this may cause necessary blight however it should be done whilst there is still some flexibility in the design so concerns can realistically be addressed and mitigated where appropriate. It is acceptable to consult on a preferred alignment although options should be shown were they have been considered, this approach is encouraged.

5. Proposed Methodology for Public Consultation

It is intended that the consultation will follow the guidnace outlined in “Code of Practise on the Dissemination of Information during major Infrastructure Developments” provided by the Department of Environment, Transport and Regions and “Transport and Works Act 2001 Guidance”. These documents will form the basis of the consultation approach and allow all parties involoved in consultation to develop a fluid approach to successful, open and inclusive consultation.

The “Code of Practise on the Dissemination of Information during major Infrastructure Developments” clearly states what level of information should be available, and encourages openness. It also states,

“that at the earliest opportunity, and subsequently maintain a contact point within the organisation which will respond to enquiries speedily and with courtesy”

This requirement has already been met. All the work currently being undertaken will be used to inform public consultation and a strategy will be agreed with Atlantic.

The importance of consultation is stressed in the ‘Guidance on Private Bill, Directorate of Clerking and Reporting, April 2001” and our approach will be included in the Promotors Memorandum, Kennedys will advise on exact requirements.

As with all schemes that have been in the public domain for some time considerable consultation will already have taken place. In addition it is included within relevant Statutory Planning documents which will also have undergone various consultation exercises.

The first task is to prepare a position statement detailing any consultation to date either directly relating to the project or via other sources such as associated or Structure Plan. We will also quantify consultation to date with Statutory and Non-statutory consultees identified in the Guidance. Once complete the strategy can be developed further in line with that succesfully implemented on other major infrastructure projects. This involves a launch, to be led by Atlantic PR and officers, followed by local public consultations in the form of exhibitions at key population centres along the route staffed by officers at specific times. An information pack supported by the website is to be preapred by Atlantic to assist with this. Leaflet drops along the route may also be appropriate. Depending on the results of these surgerys it may be necessary to do smaller consultations on specific issues.

The consultation exhibition should ideally be at a venue for two or three days and needs to be open when working people can attend: thus opening hours might sensibly be 12 noon to 8pm. The exhibition format allows a relaxed opportunity for interface between the public and those involved with the scheme.

Again, the resource commitment required will be obvious. Ideally two officers/advisors with knowledge of the scheme should be present. A member presence can add political weight to exhibitions however this is a decision for each authority.

We would strongly recommend consultation meetings such as with Parish and Town Councils, the business community, disabled groups and environment groups. These would be by invitation only and the work would include: drafting of invitation lists, arranging dates and venues in conjunction with members and officers, arranging venues, drafting invitations, formatting meetings, designing and production of presentations. We do not encourage open public meetings as these can be hijacked by a small minority often leading to a combative atmosphere and negative result.

In addition we would also recommend the setting up of a website as aide to consultation. This is now common practise on major public transport projects and is utilised by many of the Authorities already awarded Centre of Excellence for Integrated Transport Planning as effective for the dissemination of information. In addition it can also be used as another medium for comment. This has already been undertaken by Atlantic and is proving successful.

A procedure needs to be agreed for press releases including responding to unsolicited press inquiries most local authorities have officers and well established procedures for dealing with these.

The key suggested tasks for Public Consultation include the following but for this project this is given as an example and the strategy is to be agreed by T&T, Atlantic and Kennedys;

Staffed exhibitions at, at least three locations along the route including an evening and Saturday

Publicize exhibitions in local press, local radio and possibly television

Hotline set up, with answer machine for back up only

Preparation for consultation

Print stationary, business cards, compliment slips etc ASAP

Notify owners of any CPO properties ASAP in person

Notify affected persons ASAP in person

Draft text for detailed brochure

Arrange for artists impression (liase with ERM /LA’s)

Arrange copyright

Draft text for A4 leaflet

Book venues

Arrange staffing

Arrange newspaper adverts

Laminate relevant plans

Draft standard answers to queries

Prepare visitors book

Aerial photographs if possible

Prepaid questionnaire to be drafted for incorporation into brochure

The above list is intended to promote discussion and form the basis of the consultation strategy which will continue to be based on the guidance provided by DETR and DOT.

June 2002, meeting with Mr Rae, Mrs Inglis and others with TTMS and SWR,
21/08/02 at Falahill, with Nick Ball and John Ross Scott (Mr Rae not present but minute indicates that info would be passed by other residents),
05/02/03 (TTMS, Nick Ball and John Ross Scott present), 30/07/02 (Heriot Village Hall, no record that Mr Rae was present but TTMS provided him with details of the meeting in e-mail dated 17/07/02),
31/03/03 (Heriot Community Council, no record that Mr Rae was present)
22/11/04 Individual with Bruce Rutherford and Scott Wilson

Subsequent to the objection being submitted, no specific meeting.
However, Stow community meeting attended by Harrison Cowley/SBC on the following dates - 12/02/02, 09/07/02, 05/08/02 (Stow and Fountainhall Community Council meeting),
Individual meeting on 12/01/04.

1

6

Stow Station Supporters

c/o Sparrow Castle
91 Galashiels Road
STOW
TD1 2RQ

Subsequent to the objection being submitted, no specific meeting.
However, Stow community meeting attended by Harrison Cowley/SBC on the following dates - 12/02/02, 09/07/02, 05/08/02 (Stow and Fountainhall Community Council meeting),
Individual meeting on 11/11/03.

1

7

Mr & Mrs Wilson

Dalhousie Station House
Dalkeith
EH22 3LZ

08/12/2003

1

8

Symon of Edinburgh

Hardengreen Road
Eskbank
Dalkeith
EH22 3JY

No meeting to date despite offers.

9

J Pendlebury

3 Dalhousie Mains Cottages
Dalkeith
EH22 3LZ

05/12/2003

1

10

Mr & Mrs Davies

1 Dalhousie Mains Cottages
Dalkeith
EH22 3LZ

05/12/2003

1

11

Mr & Mrs Baxter

Cowbrae Cottage
Cowbraehill
Tynehead
Pathhead
Midlothian
EH37 5XT

No meeting to date despite offers. Objector does not feel need to meet.

2

12

Mr & Mrs Banks,

7 Falahill Cottages
Heriot
Midlothian
EH38 5YG

June 2002, meeting with Mr Rae, Mrs Inglis and others with TTMS and SWR;
21/08/02 at Falahill, with Nick Ball and John Ross Scott,
05/02/03 (TTMS, Nick Ball and John Ross Scott present),
30/07/02 (Heriot Village Hall, no record that Mr or Mrs Banks were present but TTMS provided details of the meeting to Mr Rae in e-mail dated 17/07/02),
31/03/03 (Heriot Community Council, no record that Mr or Mrs Banks were present)

2

13

Ms L.Inglis

4 Falahill Cottages
Heriot
Midlothian
EH38 5YG

June 2002, meeting with Mr Rae, Mrs Inglis and others with TTMS and SWR,
21/08/02 at Falahill, with Nick Ball and John Ross Scott,
05/02/03 (TTMS, Nick Ball and John Ross Scott present),
30/07/02 (Heriot Village Hall, no record that Mrs Inglis was present but TTMS provided him with details of the meeting in e-mail dated 17/07/02),
31/03/03 (Heriot Community Council, no record that Mrs Inglis was present).
Meeting to discuss objection held 13/01/04

June 2002, meeting with Mr and Mrs Allison.
30/07/02 (Heriot Village Hall)
31/03/03 (Heriot Community Council)
No further meetings reques ted

1

17

Ms H.Foster

8 Falahill Cottages
Heriot
Midlothian
EH38 5YG

June 2002, meeting with Mr Rae, Mrs Inglis and others with TTMS and SWR.
21/08/02 at Falahill, with Nick Ball and John Ross Scott.
05/02/03 (TTMS, Nick Ball and John Ross Scott present),
30/07/02 (Heriot Village Hall, no record that Ms Foster was present but TTMS provided Mr Rae with details of the meeting in e-mail dated 17/07/02),
31/03/03 (Heriot Community Council, no record that Ms Foster was present).
Individual meeting to discuss objection held 13/01/03
Group meeting held with Ms Foster representing Falahill residents(12,65,66, 67,99 except Rae 3 and Inglis13) 29/11/04.

2

18

Mr W R Bull

Meeting first held in September 2002 (no exact date).
Subsequent meeting on 0/02/045

2

19

DEW Kibble & Sons

Falahill Farm
Heriot
Midlothian
EH38 5YG

10/09/02
08/10/02
28/01/03
09/02/04

4

20

Scott Murray

The Old Railway Cottage
Falahill
Near Heriot
EH38 5YG

21/08/02 at Falahill, with Nick Ball and John Ross Scott.
05/02/03 at Falahill (TTMS, Nick Ball and John Ross Scott present),
30/07/02 (Heriot Village Hall, no record that Mr and Mrs Murray were present),
31/03/03 (Heriot Community Council, no record that Mr and Mrs Murray were present).
Individual meeting to discuss objection held 22/01/2004
Mr and Mrs Murray were present at a meeting with Mr and Mrs Smith and Mr Bull in September 2002.

Prior to the objection being submitted, no specific meeting. However, Stow community meeting attended by Harrison Cowley/SBC on the following dates:
12/02/02,
09/07/02,
05/08/02 (Stow and Fountainhall Community Council meeting),
individual meeting on 28/01/04

1

26

Symon
39 Station Road, Stow

7 Rose Circle
Bonnyrigg
EH19 3RG

No meeting requested, despite offer.

27

James Kirkness & Others

41 Station Road
Stow
Selkirkshire
TD1 2SQ

This objection focusses on claims associated with population, new industry, tourism and increased house building. It does not reference where these claims are made. Also objected to OBC, letter to be drafted

No meeting requested, despite offer.

28

James Kirkness

41 Station Road
Stow
Selkirkshire
TD1 2SQ

Letter enclosing CPO guidance to be issued.

No meeting requested, despite offer.

29

Mrs Myles

39 Station Road
Stow
Selkirkshire
TD1 2SQ

This is a two part objection stating that 'I will lose access to my home' and there has 'been no …consultation'.
Letter addressing concerns to be issued

A meeting was held with the objector on 24th January. The Promoter agreed to supply certain information by the end February and are on course for meeting the deadline. The Objectors agreed to check if the principle of a noise barrier would be acceptable to all the residents.

04/06/03
24/01/04

2

58

Residents of Deanpark, Newtongrange

No.s 37, 41, 43, 46, 47, 48 Deanpark
Newtongrange
EH22

Awaiting a response from the Objector

No meeting held prior to objection submission.
Meeting with residents on 08/01/04

1

59

Peter & Margaret Dubickas
Damside Cottage

c/o Stuart & Stuart WS
7 High Street
Bonnyrigg
Midlothian
EH19 2DA

Awaiting a response from the Objector

03/12/2003

1

60

Angus & Carol Pretswell
Hawksnest House

c/o James Miller
Ironside Farrar
12 Gayfield Square
Edinburgh
EH1 3NX

This objection is in three parts 1. inaccurate notice 2. reinstatement of buildings and walls 3. conflict with development plan.
A response was issued in relation to part 1, but not 2 and 3. A response to these is being prepared

No meeting requested, despite offer.

61

Dr & Mrs Wightman

The Granary
Fushiebridge
Midlothian
EH23 4QF

This is a lengthy objection in three parts 1 Consultation, 2 Environmental 3 property value.. The response issued to the objector dated 24 March 04 refers to land 'to be taken permanently'. A further letter is being prepared

No meeting requested following objection submission

62

Mr Charles Callander

Tynehead Farm
Tynehead
Pathhead
EH37 5XS

Letters issued to the Objector 24/11/03, 02/04/04 and 28/02/05. Response awaited from the Objector.

10/09/2002
08/10/2002
05/12/2003

3

63

Mr Michael Radford

Granary Cottage
Fushiebridge
Midlothian
EH23 4QF

Promoter currently pursuing an agreement with objector. Letter issued to the Objector 28/02/05. Response awaited from the Objector.

To maintain and keep informed of Bill Progress and development of Early Purchase Scheme. An update meeting was held with the Objector on the 21st February 2005.

65

Mr & Mrs J. Patterson

6 Falahill Cottages
Heriot
Midlothian
EH38 5YG

Refer to objection 17

June 2002, meeting with Mr Rae, Mrs Inglis and others with TTMS and SWR;
21/08/02 at Falahill, with Nick Ball and John Ross Scott,
05/02/03 (TTMS, Nick Ball and John Ross Scott present),
30/07/02 (Heriot Village Hall, no record that Mr or Mrs Patterson were present but TTMS provided details of the meeting to Mr Rae in e-mail dated 17/07/02),
31/03/03 (Heriot Community Council, no record that Mr or Mrs Patterson were present)
Group meeting held with Ms Foster representing Falahill residents(12,65,66, 67,99 except Rae 3 and Inglis13) 29/11/04.

66

Mr F.G. Wood

2 Falahill Cottage
Heriot
Midlothian
EH38 5YG

Refer to objection No 17.

June 2002, meeting with Mr Rae, Mrs Inglis and others with TTMS and SWR; 21/08/02 at Falahill, with Nick Ball and John Ross Scott, 05/02/03 (TTMS, Nick Ball and John Ross Scott present), 30/07/02 (Heriot Village Hall, no record that Mr Wood was present but TTMS provided details of the meeting to Mr Rae in e-mail dated 17/07/02), 31/03/03 (Heriot Community Council, no record that Mr Wood was present) Individual Meeting 13/01/04 Group meeting held with Ms Foster representing Falahill residents(12,65,66, 67,99 except Rae 3 and Inglis13) 29/11/04.

1

67

Mr David M. Cowen

9 Falahill Cottages
Heriot
Midlothian
EH38 5YG

Refer to objection 17

June 2002, meeting with Mr Rae, Mrs Inglis and others with TTMS and SWR;
21/08/02 at Falahill, with Nick Ball and John Ross Scott,
05/02/03 (TTMS, Nick Ball and John Ross Scott present),
30/07/02 (Heriot Village Hall, no record that Mr Cowan was present but TTMS provided details of the meeting to Mr Rae in e-mail dated 17/07/02),
31/03/03 (Heriot Community Council, no record that Mr Cowan was present)
Group meeting held with Ms Foster representing Falahill residents(12,65,66, 67,99 except Rae 3 and Inglis13) 29/11/04.

68

Lord Borthwick

Crookston
Heriot
Midlothian
EH38 5YS

Awaiting a response from the Objector

10/09/2002
08/10/2002
January 2003

3

69

Mr & Mrs Barnett

Sandyknowe
Heriot
Midlothian
EH38 5YB

Concern is in relation to water supply, a protocol is being drafted for inclusion in tender documents to protect this. On completeion a further letter will be drafted and agreement sought

07/10/03
03/12/03

2

70

Andrew Peter Caunt

Sunnyside
Heriot
Midlothian
EH38 5YE

Meeting held in January 2004 to discuss provision of a further footbridge across the railway. Further information confirming crossing point provision issued 28/02/05. Response awaited from the Objector.

0/07/02 (Heriot Village Hall, no record that Mr Caunt was present.
31/03/03 (Heriot Community Council, no record that Mr Caunt was present).
Meeting to discuss objection held 09/01/04

1

71

Gordon Richardson & Fjordhus Ltd

c/o Alistair MacDonald
The Strone
Longnewton
st Boswells
TD6 9ES

Letter being drafted to agent setting out position re land exchange

15/12/03
With agent only August 2004

1

72

Messrs S & I Thomson
Auto Salvage

c/o Alistair MacDonald
The Strone
Longnewton
st Boswells
TD6 9ES

Letter being drafted to agent setting out position re land exchange

15/12/03
With agent only August 2004

2

73

Beechbank Place Proprietors Association

Miss J Haldane
3 Beechbank Place
Galashiels
TD1 2BH

Letter being drafted

21/01/2004

2

74

Rev. J. Creanor
Parish Priest

Our Lady and Saint Andrew Church
Galashiels
Scottish Borders

A letter is with the solicitors for the RC Church with proposals for a settlement.

28/10/03
10/12/03
14/01/04
May 04

75

Andrew Brown

Plumtreehall
Plumtree Brae
Galashiels

Mr Brown confirmed 28-10-04 that 'we [promoter] have addressed all issues regarding the railway …'will not withdraw objection but grateful for all info and help

July 2003
14/01/04

2

76

Tony Grant
SUSTRANS

162 Fountainbridge
Edinburgh
EH3 9RX

Meetings have been held with this objector in both Midlothian and Borders. Issues arising from the meetings are being actioned.

07/01/04

1

77

K & I Limited
Hardengreen Coachworks

c/o David Wilson
Bonar Mackenzie
9- 11 Hill Street
Edinburgh
EH2 3JT

Awaiting a response from the Objector

No meeting prior to objection submission
Individual meeting 09/12/03

1

78

Dr D Wylie & Dr J Wylie (at No 5)
& Mr & Mrs D Combe (at No 6)

5 & 6 Westfield Bank
Eskbank
Dalkeith
Midlothian
EH22 3DN

Response re voluntary purchase to be issued.

Meetings held in June 2002 and 07/01/04

2

79

Mr & Mrs Martin
Hardengreen, Dalkeith

Kilduff House
Athelstaneford
North Berwick
EH39 5BD

Awaiting a response from the Objector

08/02/2004

1

80

Mr & Mrs Lamb

Glenarch House
Melville Road
Eskbank
Dalkeith
Midlothian
EH22 3NJ

Awaiting a response from the Objector

09/11/03
January 2004

2

81

Mr S Lyon & Miss L Jackson

14 Newtongrange Place
Newtongrange
Dalkeith
Midlothian
EH22 4PA

Awaiting a response from the Objector

No meeting prior to objection submission.
01/02/2004

1

82

Mr L.Graham
Grange Estates (Newbattle) Ltd

c/o Bell & Scott Solicitors
16 Hill Street
Edinburgh
EH2 3LD

Meeting held, further letter to be sent.

Meeting held February 2004

1

83

Mr L.Graham
Grange Estates (Newbattle) Ltd

c/o Bell & Scott Solicitors
16 Hill Street
Edinburgh
EH2 3LD

Letter sent to objector on 02/04/04 deferring further discussion until after Royal Assent - further letter to be sent

The issues relating to the retail park have been defined and the promoters lawyers are preparing a written response. A letter was issued 17/12/04 and subsequent discussions have taken place. Resultant actions are being progressed.

Meeting held. Eildon to provide residents with some options. Further correspondence has been issued to Eildon Housing and in particular one of the residents (Mrs Moffat) with a view to providing a solution to to her concerns regarding re-housing.

23/01/2003
10/11/04

2

109

Ostle Tyres
Currie Road Ind Estate

c/o Collie & Co.
70 High Street
Galashiels
TD1 1SQ

Meeting held on 29/10/03 with objector to discuss land take. Alternative land was identified. Further meeting held with the Objectors Agent. Discussions ongoing with a view to resolve.

Prime objection relates to access to Tescos. Original objection of 03/12/03 proposes a solution and an undertaking. D Muir held site meeting with objector. Subsequent letter issued to objector 7/9/04 advising that the objector would be advised of progress re discussions with Network Rail. A further letter was issued to this objector on the 12th January to which the Promoter now awaits a response.

123

Nicholas Watson

Not available

The Committee decided at its meeting on 12 May 2004 that, in its opinion, the objectors interest are not clearly adversely affected.

124

Linda Page

Sheriff House
Dalkeith
EH22 1RU

A letter has been issued to the Objector offering a meeting.

No Meeting requested - Met with Mr Capaldi in November 2002.

1

125

J & G Lawrence

2 Dalhousie Mains Cottages
Dalkeith
Middlothian
EH22 3LZ

A letter has been issued to the Objector offering a meeting.

No meeting requested

126

David Fowler

198 Magdala Terrace
Galashiels
TD1 2HY

A letter has been issued to the Objector offering a meeting.

No meeting requested

127

Residents of High Buckholmside, Galashiels

5 High Buckholmside
Galashiels
Selkirkshire
TD1 2HP

A letter has been issued to the Objectors offering a meeting.

No meeting requested

128

George C Baillie

4 Still Haugh
Fountainhall
Galashiels
TD1 2SL

ERM to undertake detailed noise study in response to 7/1/5 letter. Letter issued to Parliament 21/2/5. The Promoters representative met the Objector on the 03/03/05 and has agreed to issue further information.

03/03/2004

1

129

Youngace Ltd

TBC

Objection lodged in respect of the whole Bill and specified provisions. The Committee decided at its meeting on 14 December 2004 that, in respect of the whole Bill element of the objection, the objectors' interests are, in the opinion of the Committee, not clearly adversely affected.

No meeting requested

130

Ms Rosie Wild

Braehead House
st Boswells
Roxburghshire
TD6 0AZ

Objection lodged in respect of the whole Bill and specified provisions. The Committee decided at its meeting on 14 December 2004 that, in respect of the whole Bill element of the objection, the objectors' interests are, in the opinion of the Committee, not clearly adversely affected.

No meeting requested

131

Peregrine Edinburgh Ltd

TBC

Objection lodged in respect of the whole Bill and specified provisions. The Committee decided at its meeting on 14 December 2004 that, in respect of the whole Bill element of the objection, the objectors' interests are, in the opinion of the Committee, not clearly adversely affected.

On 17 March the promoter produced its “Answers on behalf of the Promoter in respect of the Committee’s Request of 11 March for Additional Written Evidence on Consultation”. I do not know when this document was placed on the Parliament’s website, but it was not until last weekend that I accidentally came across it. Looking for references to the "Residents of Victoria Gardens" objectors, I notice a worrying number of inaccuracies and overly optimistic representations of facts. Without being able to judge the correctness of the presented information in relation to other groups, this does not give a lot of trust in the overall accuracy of the document.

Please bring the following comments on this document to the attention of the Committee for the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill.

1. In paragraph 12 the “ Victoria Gardens residents group” is mentioned as one of the groups closely involved in the consultation exercise. This is an incorrect representation of the facts. We have been chasing the Waverley Railway Project for information and for a reply to our comments on the noise and vibration section of the Environmental Statement since 2002, largely without success. Maybe this is the promoter’s definition of close involvement; it is not ours.

2. Appendix 2 mentions agreement to erect a noise barrier adjacent to Victoria Gardens. In fact, the proposed barrier only extends along half of the affected houses. We are still waiting to hear the motivation for this, as well as for information about the residual noise levels. Until this information becomes available we cannot express an agreement or disagreement with the proposed barrier.

3. Appendix 3 mentions a meeting with myself on 28 August 2004. Such a meeting has never taken place. Peculiarly enough, the meeting between the Waverley Railway Project and a number of residents of Victoria Gardens that did take place on 4 June 2003, is not mentioned at all. Perhaps WRP prefer to forget about this meeting, as they never followed up on its actions.

4. In appendix 4 a meeting on 24 January is mentioned (meeting 57), together with actions following from the meeting. In this meeting the promoter proposed to erect a noise barrier at Victoria Gardens, but was unable to give details. They promised to provide further information by the end of February, together with additional information about vibration. Although a memo from ERM’s noise and vibration consultant was received on 8 March, it contained little more information than had already been provided earlier. The current situation is that we are still waiting for information about residual noise levels and the motivation behind the proposed dimensions of the barrier. It also has not yet been confirmed that a noise barrier at this location does not conflict with railway safety requirements.

My apologies for the late date of these comments. As mentioned before, I did not see the promoter’s document until last weekend.

still haugh residents’ response to promoter’s memorandum on questions on consultation

I refer to the promoter's Memorandum in respect of the Committee's Request of 11 March for Additional Written Evidence on Consultation -

In Appendix 3; Public Consultation Meetings (Page 19) they state that on 21 Oct 2004 there was a Still Haugh meeting - NO public consulation meeting or any other meeting has ever taken place with the residents of Still Haugh.

In Appendix 4; Other meetings....... (Page 43) no. 128 - As mentioned in our previous replies the Noise Study undertaken by ERM was not satisfactory as the noise receptors used were place in totally the wrong locations, one not even on site but half a mile away, (still awaiting a response to this), Promoters representative (Andrew Rosher) did meet with us and some other residents on 3rd March 2005 and as stated in our previous reply we were no further informed than before we had the meeting, his flippant remarks were as stated in our response of 15 April 2005, he did as stated on page 43 agree to issue further information to us but to date we have heard from or spoken to, no-one.

The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill (“CTRL”) is the only recent comparator with the Waverley project (“ Waverley”). CTRL comprised a new railway approximately twice the length of Waverley. Like Waverley, CTRL goes through both rural and urban areas.

CTRL gave rise to 6,953 notices to landowners served on 17 th, 18 th, 19th and 21st November 1994. On 6th December 1994 compliance with Standing Orders was formally proved to the Parliamentary authorities at Westminster. Detailed figures concerning returned, etc notice accordingly relate to the 14 day period between 21st November and 6th December. There were undoubtedly further returned notices after 6th December, but because of the way the Westminster rules work those figures have not been published.

The nearest equivalent figures for Waverley cover a much longer period, from the date of service of notice on 11th September 2003 to the expiry of the 60 day objection period. On 11th September 2003 4,537 notices were served on behalf of the Promoter.

The following breakdown table is of the figures for returned or similar notices relating to each Bill.

John Kennedy & Co

5th March 2005

TABLE

No. of notices 1

Return period 2

Returned undelivered and re-served 3

Not called for 4

Interests gone 5

Gone away: untraceable 6

Incorrect address 7

Total notices issued within return period

Date

Days

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

CTRL

6,953

21.11.94- 6.12.94

14

782

11.25

519

7.47

40

0.57

23

0.33

200

2.87

1,564

22.49

Returned and re-served 8

Returned no re-service 9

Waverley

4,537

11.9.03- 6.11.03

60

104

2.26

5

0.11

109

2.37

2. Late notices 10

CTRL

130 11

21.11.94- 6.12.94

14

Waverley

36 11

11.9.03- 6.11.03

60

Waverley

217 12

15.9.04- 9.11.04

(55)

1. Served on Bill deposit (CTRL)/introduction (Waverley).2. See para 4 (CTRL), para 3 (Waverley). Periods regarding late notices are actual dates.3. Returned by the Post Office marked as undelivered. Further addresses had to be ascertained for re-service.4. Returned marked ‘not called for’ because the Post Office had been unable to deliver or, after leaving an advice note at the premises, the notice had not been collected from the Post Office.5. Enquiries revealed that the interests in the property had ceased to exist since the date of the reference.6. Notices could not be served because the recipients had gone away and their whereabouts were unknown or information requested from others was withheld.7. Returns attributable to incorrect or incomplete addresses.8. Notices returned during objection period. Re-served.9. Notices returned during objection period. Re-service unnecessary.10. Figures are number of notice recipients. CTRL notices were prepared on the basis of one per landowner, with a single notice covering several plots. Waverley notices were one per plot with owners of several plots getting more than one notice. What is comparable in the context of late notices is therefore numbers of recipient landowners rather than the numbers of notices.11. Numbers of landowners.12. Number of landowners. This figure includes all the 251 notices served in September 2004. (Total number of notices 260 served on 217 landowners.)